9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (11) TMI 314X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y assessee, without even a word on why they are not acceptable. It is a well settled Law that when an assessee has all the possible evidence in support of its claim, they cannot be brushed aside based on surmises. Hence we are not inclined to accept the contention of the Assessing Officer in any manner and hence the addition so made, is deleted. Hence these two grounds of the assessee are allowed. - ITA No. 90/SRT/2019 - - - Dated:- 25-10-2021 - Pawan Singh , Member ( J ) And Dr. A. L. Saini , Member ( A ) For the Appellant : Rajesh Upadhyay , AR For the Respondents : Anupama Singla , Sr. DR ORDER Per Dr. A. L. Saini , Accountant Member Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other documents, it was observed by assessing officer that assessee is a trader in shares and securities. As per the Audited accounts, stock of shares has been shown. The assessing officer has asked the assessee to submit details of share transactions. In response, the assessee submitted a Demat transaction statement of HDFC which shows some 3 to 4 scrips as closing balance. The assessing officer noted that assessee could not submit the complete details. Therefore, assessing officer was of the view that assessee had made transactions, in shares which the assessee had not properly disclosed during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, a sum of ₹ 17,21,255/- was considered as unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C of the Act and a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on record of the CIT(A) as well as assessing officer. The assessing officer has also examined both documents during remand proceedings. No discrepancy was pointed out either by the assessing officer or by the ld. CIT(A), therefore addition may be deleted. 6. On the other hand, Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. 7. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which are placed at Page no. 84 and 85 of paper book. The assessing officer held that purchases of ₹ 17,21,255/- was unexplained due to want of source. The ld. Counsel pointed out that it was explained to the AO and CIT(A) that the assessee was in need of audit report in the Month of September 2014 for some purposes. At that time, demat account with HDFC Bank Ltd., was available. So, transactions of the said demat account was considered. However, demat account with ISE Securities was available thereafter on 27/11/2014. So, transactions with the said demat account could not consider in auditor's report dated 29/09/2014. However, it was duly considered in auditor's report dated 29/11/2014. Both reports along with a certificate f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ly tallied with Page No. 42 and 44 of paper book which is a balance sheet as per books. Likewise, at Page No. 10 to Page No. 13 of paper book there are Profit and Loss account in ITR which also gets tallied with Page No. 42 of paper book, which is a profit and loss account from books of account. Thus, Ld. Counsel pointed out that assessee has already shown purchases of shares in his return of income for assessment year 2014-15. 10. We note that neither the assessing officer nor the ld. CIT(A) has invoked provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. We note that assessing officer has not discussed any of these documents and evidences in the assessment order. The assessing officer has not made any adverse finding in any of these documents, eve ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
